Come on. I don't doubt your credentials, but you can't make a statement like that without qualifying it. To my untrained eye this looks just fine, maybe a touch different black levels on the Enterprise and space. What exactly do you object to in the composite?

The mismatched blacks , the odd perspective on the ship relative to the rest of the image, the fuzzy uniform 2d filter based glow around everything , the comp method on the glow that makes the stars brighter ( you would lose the stars in the glow).

I was just thinking, that would be shweeet if they ever made a feature length movie of the alternative universe Enterprise-D before and after it entered the rift in "Yesterday's Enterprise". It could be a fantastic Romulan and Klingon melee blast-fest!

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.

I have no problem with offering a widescreen option, as long as OAR is there.

I know people like to fill the screen, but there will be a lot of people who won't bother if there is no OAR option, and that could jeopardize getting all seasons done (not to mention any possible DS9, Voyager etc.).

I'd hate to see any loss of picture just to fill my TV, but I'd support opening up to the full frame of the film that I saw an example online (what ratio was that, 1.66:1?)

I disagree. If they're going to do something other than present the image the cinematographer originally intended to be seen, I'd rather they go ahead and fill up the 16:9 frame in doing it. Meanwhile, I really think they should just leave the frame as it's supposed to be.

I was wrong in my earlier post where I suggested 1.50:1 would be the resulting aspect ratio were CBS to keep the vertical framing intact. In actuality, if they kept the image height as seen on the DVDs while also opening up the frame horizontally, that would result in an aspect ratio of 1.65:1. If they went right to the vertical "TV Safe Action Area", they'd have an AR of 1.85:1. So, right in-between would be 1.77:1 or 16x9.

You can see the Panavision film formats below. Note the measurements of the aperatures given in decimals. Take the .980 of the 35mm Full Aperature and combine it with the .594 of the 1.33 TV Transmitted Area.

Yeh although OAR is normally top priority, I do think in this case 16:9 with more picture info could give the show a new lease of life (which is what it sounds like - or maybe something like slightly less on the top and bottom but more on the sides (a sort of reframing) thats still OK). If Burnett says the 16:9 version would win by a landslide well then that almost confirms 100% that it isn't just a 'cropped' 16:9 - which would be a catastrophe like what has happened to other old TV shows like the DBZ DVD's.

Personally I find 1.33:1 a bit boring these days - it's an old pre 1953 film that was intended that way then fine - but that is only a film that lasts 2 hours so its OK - if I'm going to watch 7 seasons of TNG I wouldn't mind something new

Not at all - for example I will happily watch Meek's Cut Off in its 1.33 OAR even though it is a 2010 movie. I have many Criterion titles in 1.33 and happily enjoy them - even some like Fish Tank which is not old at all.

I just said pre-1953 since that is when there was the most 1.33/1.37 content (other than TV shows of course). But to have the option of either watching dozens and dozens of hours of 1.33:1 content, as opposed to 1.78:1 content made by people who know what the hell they are doing (ie. CBS), I would definitely take the latter.

Same thing for example with Farscape - if there was an option to make the first 3 seasons 1.78:1 in a similar manner to what is being done to TNG - I would happily take it.

I think that was the point of his quizzical response. The Blu-ray spec uses the HD 16x9 fixed aspect of the displayed image... so everything is "forced' into that and anything other (4:3, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc.) is padded with black to fill the remaining space on the screen.

I'm not sure the HD spec (or Blu-ray for that matter) has anything to account for trying to display/interpret an image that isn't 16x9... though I of course could be wrong on that assumption as I haven't read the specs in their entirety.

I can't remember if I said this already here on another forum... but basically, I don't find myself noticing the aspect ratio of any movie or TV show that I'm truly engrossed in... so I don't see the black bars on the side of 4:3 programming if I like the show.

IF I'm watching an old TNG episode and find myself noticing those black bars... it usually means the episode is not one of the good ones.

If people think widescreen is why TNG would be more attractive, then why is Enterprise not more popular than TNG with most fans? I happen to like Enterprise... but most seem to prefer TNG or even DS9 to Enterprise... which seems to say that the fans would rather have 4:3 TNG than 16x9 Enterprise.

Thus... HD TNG in 4:3 should sell just fine if they do a good job with it like was done with TOS.

I can only speak for myself... but if they make TNG only available in 16x9, I would not rebuy it unless it becomes VERY cheap... I mean like <$20 a season cheap... because I would have far less interest in it over the DVDs that I already own.

I can only speak for myself... but if they make TNG only available in 16x9, I would not rebuy it unless it becomes VERY cheap... I mean like <$20 a season cheap... because I would have far less interest in it over the DVDs that I already own.

How can you say that until you have seen some footage? You might be pleasantly surprised at how it turns out.

I can't remember if I said this already here on another forum... but basically, I don't find myself noticing the aspect ratio of any movie or TV show that I'm truly engrossed in... so I don't see the black bars on the side of 4:3 programming if I like the show.

IF I'm watching an old TNG episode and find myself noticing those black bars... it usually means the episode is not one of the good ones.

If people think widescreen is why TNG would be more attractive, then why is Enterprise not more popular than TNG with most fans? I happen to like Enterprise... but most seem to prefer TNG or even DS9 to Enterprise... which seems to say that the fans would rather have 4:3 TNG than 16x9 Enterprise.

Thus... HD TNG in 4:3 should sell just fine if they do a good job with it like was done with TOS.

I can only speak for myself... but if they make TNG only available in 16x9, I would not rebuy it unless it becomes VERY cheap... I mean like <$20 a season cheap... because I would have far less interest in it over the DVDs that I already own.

I notice the black bars on occasion because they're obvious. I'm not saying I don't enjoy the show any less just that to me it is noticeable regardless of which episode I'm watching.

I can't believe your second statement for a minute. Unless the show was compromised in such a manner that it was Lucas-fied I don't see what would prevent you from purchasing and enjoying it should they be done in 16x9. That's just my opinion though.

I like Burnett's suggestion to let fans vote over the 4:3 or 16:9. I have to admit that while I'm normally an advent purist of "staying true to the source", I don't really care about TV shows as much as films. That said, my fear is that any cropped 16:9 version wuold either lose a lot of great set pieces or they would use some sort of verticle pan-and-scan to recover important information. I can think of more than one instance of Data at the science station with Riker and Picard hovering over him. I'd hate to miss Riker's befuddled look or Picard's moments of understanding simply because their heads were chopped off...

TOS looked great, I gotta go OAR. Now if the manner of original filming allowed more information to be pulled from the negatives now, then I would vote 16:9. Gotta admit, I'll probably buy it ether way. :|

I like Burnett's suggestion to let fans vote over the 4:3 or 16:9. I have to admit that while I'm normally an advent purist of "staying true to the source", I don't really care about TV shows as much as films. That said, my fear is that any cropped 16:9 version wuold either lose a lot of great set pieces or they would use some sort of verticle pan-and-scan to recover important information. I can think of more than one instance of Data at the science station with Riker and Picard hovering over him. I'd hate to miss Riker's befuddled look or Picard's moments of understanding simply because their heads were chopped off...

TOS looked great, I gotta go OAR. Now if the manner of original filming allowed more information to be pulled from the negatives now, then I would vote 16:9. Gotta admit, I'll probably buy it ether way. :|

Yeh I very much doubt it will be cropped - I trust Paramount/CBS with this.

If it does turn out to be cropped with no extra picture well that would be a slap in the face.

I think the most likely outcome is a reframing - as long as there isn't too much info lost at the top or bottom it will be OK.

Stretchy-vision? Well, if you have a 4:3 aspect ratio TV, I suppose you could watch a 4:3 BD without pillarboxing.

On a tangent, weren't the Babylon 5 episodes originally broadcast in 4:3, but reframed to 16:9 for the DVDs? From wikipedia, "rather than the usual 4:3 format, the [B5] series was shot in 16:9, with the image cropped to 4:3 for initial television transmissions."

So TNG may end up being the opposite, with the initial filming/production targeting 4:3, and a possible remaster with 16:9. I guess it could be done, but we'll have to see it ourselves to see how well it works.